Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userWhich papers cited which tweets? An empirical analysis based on Scopus data
324
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Robin Haunschild
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Many altmetric studies analyze which papers were mentioned how often in specific altmetrics sources. In order to study the potential policy relevance of tweets from another perspective, we investigate which tweets were cited in papers. If many tweets were cited in publications, this might demonstrate that tweets have substantial and useful content. Overall, a rather low number of tweets (n=5506) were cited by less than 3000 papers. Most tweets do not seem to be cited because of any cognitive influence they might have had on studies; they rather were study objects. Most of the papers citing tweets are from the subject areas Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities, and Computer Sciences. Most of the papers cited only one tweet. Up to 55 tweets cited in a single paper were found. This research-in-progress does not support a high policy-relevance of tweets. However, a content analysis of the tweets and/or papers might lead to a more detailed conclusion.
rate research
Read More
Extractive methods have been proven effective in automatic document summarization. Previous works perform this task by identifying informative contents at sentence level. However, it is unclear whether performing extraction at sentence level is the best solution. In this work, we show that unnecessity and redundancy issues exist when extracting full sentences, and extracting sub-sentential units is a promising alternative. Specifically, we propose extracting sub-sentential units based on the constituency parsing tree. A neural extractive model which leverages the sub-sentential information and extracts them is presented. Extensive experiments and analyses show that extracting sub-sentential units performs competitively comparing to full sentence extraction under the evaluation of both automatic and human evaluations. Hopefully, our work could provide some inspiration of the basic extraction units in extractive summarization for future research.
The data paper, an emerging scholarly genre, describes research datasets and is intended to bridge the gap between the publication of research data and scientific articles. Research examining how data papers report data events, such as data transactions and manipulations, is limited. The research reported on in this paper addresses this limitation and investigated how data events are inscribed in data papers. A content analysis was conducted examining the full texts of 82 data papers, drawn from the curated list of data papers connected to the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Data events recorded for each paper were organized into a set of 17 categories. Many of these categories are described together in the same sentence, which indicates the messiness of data events in the laboratory space. The findings challenge the degrees to which data papers are a distinct genre compared to research papers and they describe data-centric research processes in a through way. This paper also discusses how our results could inform a better data publication ecosystem in the future.
Bibliometrics provides accurate, cheap and simple descriptions of research systems and should lay the foundations for research policy. However, disconnections between bibliometric knowledge and research policy frequently misguide the research policy in many countries. A way of correcting these disconnections might come from the use of simple indicators of research performance. One such simple indicator is the number of highly cited researchers, which can be used under the assumption that a research system that produces and employs many highly cited researchers will be more successful than others with fewer of them. Here, we validate the use of the number of highly cited researchers (Ioannidis et al. 2020; PLoS Biol 18(10): e3000918) for research assessment at the country level and determine a country ranking of research success. We also demonstrate that the number of highly cited researchers reported by Clarivate Analytics is also an indicator of the research success of countries. The formal difference between the numbers of highly cited researchers according to Ionannidis et al. and Clarivate Analytics is that evaluations based on these two lists of highly cited researchers are approximately equivalent to evaluations based on the top 5% and 0.05% of highly cited papers, respectively. Moreover, the Clarivate Analytics indicator is flawed in some countries.
The web application presented in this paper allows for an analysis to reveal centres of excellence in different fields worldwide using publication and citation data. Only specific aspects of institutional performance are taken into account and other aspects such as teaching performance or societal impact of research are not considered. Based on data gathered from Scopus, field-specific excellence can be identified in institutions where highly-cited papers have been frequently published. The web application combines both a list of institutions ordered by different indicator values and a map with circles visualizing indicator values for geocoded institutions. Compared to the mapping and ranking approaches introduced hitherto, our underlying statistics (multi-level models) are analytically oriented by allowing (1) the estimation of values for the number of excellent papers for an institution which are statistically more appropriate than the observed values; (2) the calculation of confidence intervals as measures of accuracy for the institutional citation impact; (3) the comparison of a single institution with an average institution in a subject area, and (4) the direct comparison of at least two institutions.
Many studies in information science have looked at the growth of science. In this study, we re-examine the question of the growth of science. To do this we (i) use current data up to publication year 2012 and (ii) analyse it across all disciplines and also separately for the natural sciences and for the medical and health sciences. Furthermore, the data are analysed with an advanced statistical technique - segmented regression analysis - which can identify specific segments with similar growth rates in the history of science. The study is based on two different sets of bibliometric data: (1) The number of publications held as source items in the Web of Science (WoS, Thomson Reuters) per publication year and (2) the number of cited references in the publications of the source items per cited reference year. We have looked at the rate at which science has grown since the mid-1600s. In our analysis of cited references we identified three growth phases in the development of science, which each led to growth rates tripling in comparison with the previous phase: from less than 1% up to the middle of the 18th century, to 2 to 3% up to the period between the two world wars and 8 to 9% to 2012.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
